What Politico reported

According to Politico, citing four EU officials, American representatives in informal contacts asked some European capitals not to support the idea of using frozen Russian assets as a source of a "reparations loan" for Ukraine. This concerns governments Washington considers "the friendliest" — among them Italy, Bulgaria, Malta and the Czech Republic were mentioned.

At the same time, Politico writes that the European Commission and key EU capitals participated in the talks, trying to persuade Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever to back the initiative. After discussions on 16 December, according to one of the publication's interlocutors, the chances of reaching an agreement on the frozen assets "have not improved, but worsened."

"I wanted to cry"

— Unnamed senior official, participant in the discussions (quoted in Politico)

Why this matters for Ukraine

The amount — up to €210 billion — is the resource the European Commission proposed to use for lending and rebuilding Ukraine. A decision on the mechanism to convert these assets into financing is scheduled for the EU summit on 18–19 December. If the pact is derailed or postponed, Ukraine will lose a real instrument for medium-term payments and reconstruction.

For the reader this is not an abstraction: it is a question of money that supports our defense capabilities and reconstruction, and a signal about partners' ability to act with a united front against the aggressor.

Why the US may have given such advice

Politico mentions that the influence campaign was allegedly conducted bypassing Brussels. Why might Washington have acted this way? Analysts and diplomats name several motives: legal risks concerning ownership and confiscation, a desire not to create precedents for international financial relations, and domestic political considerations in certain capitals.

I emphasize: this is an interpretation of sources and expert assessments, not direct proof of the intentions of any particular administration. Politico refers to its own interlocutors; no official confirmations at the EU level are provided in the piece.

Who is against and why

Among the countries that expressed doubts are Italy, Bulgaria, Malta and the Czech Republic. Some leaders, including Bart De Wever in Belgium, fear a reaction from Russia and legal consequences for their jurisdictions. Such a set of arguments is a typical mix of geopolitics, risk management and domestic politics.

Consequences and outlook

If positions diverge, the decision on the mechanism to convert the assets could be delayed or blocked — which would mean postponement of a significant portion of financing for Ukraine. Conversely, an agreed approach would provide not only money but a strong political signal of Western unity.

Experts point out that what matters now is not loud statements but legally transparent mechanisms and coordination. Otherwise the financial instrument risks remaining a declaration rather than a contract for reconstruction.

Summary: political consultations outside Brussels have complicated the path to a decision on €210 billion. Now it is up to EU leaders: they must turn political discussions into a clear legal mechanism if they want these funds to serve Ukraine's security and recovery.

"If partners do not agree on an approach — the money will remain frozen and reconstruction will be delayed"

— Concluding analysis based on negotiations and statements from official sources